--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "john_kagan" <john_kagan@...> wrote:
d>
> I agree with this direction. I believe the "altitude change" enforcement should apply to all potential violations.>>
Yes, we all seem to agree (here, anyhow) that steering for either attitude change or altitude change is bad. Therefore my dismay over a cultural trend that seems to trigger Mr. Zivanovic's call for some self-clean up. (Peer shame can be good thing.)
<<Ethics are difficult to enforce. >>
Unstated ethics are the only thing lending some success to the following steering "rule" (potentially having no teeth until it's too late.)
Rule: <<If, in a timekeeper's opinion, a model's altitude change is
approaching one half metre, or one metre for each 25 m of altitude
(whichever is larger) he will warn the competitor. Continued disregard
of the timekeeper's warning will result in a terminated flight.">>
Since this rule offers me one violation before receiving the timekeepers warning, why shouldn't I use that one freebie for an enhanced Cat I flight? Make one big pole steer either higher or lower(depending on VP setting,) receive my natural warning, then behave after that?
Answer: a shared ethic. Or what I hope is a shared ethic. But beginning to wonder.
OF course, good rules *should* take us there, too.
Mark F1diddler
Received on Wed Jan 20 2010 - 08:00:13 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:45 CET